SORRY BEING NEW TO THIS SITE & NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND AN APPROPRIATE FORUM I HAVE POSTED THIS HERE!

I am posting this to ask if anything can be done about answerphones, or, if anyone knows of a website I can visit!
 
In my opinion (& a lot of my friends) there are times when one doesn't want to leave a message, but the outcome is that it cost about 5p not to leave a message.

i.e. One phones up, an answerphone comes on to tell one, that basically the person being phoned has call waiting, but if they do not answer one gets another message to stating, leave a message or phone later.

This has now cost one approximately 5p for nothing (unless one wants to leave a message), how millions of 5p's are BT getting for this?
 
In my opinion, in this day and age the message should be along the lines of,
 
The person you are calling cannot answer the phone right now, you have 2 choices,
 
press 1 to leave a message for this you will be charged, or, press 2 to cancel the call, you will not be charged for this.

This is another "service" that I (& a lot of my friends) feel, should be looked into, or indeed have something done about it.

wrote on Oct 25^th, 2005 at 4:37pm:

In my opinion (& a lot of my friends) there are times when one doesn't want to leave a message, but the outcome is that it cost about 5p not to leave a message.

And that is the reason why services such as BT's 1571 and Orange Answerphone are 'free'; because the telcos have connected calls which otherwise wouldn't have connected and therefore would have used their network but not earned them anything.


Quote:

In my opinion, in this day and age the message should be along the lines of,   The person you are calling cannot answer the phone right now, you have 2 choices,   press 1 to leave a message for this you will be charged, or, press 2 to cancel the call, you will not be charged for this.

I quite agree, but it's not in the telcos' interests. It's a case of this free market and competition which we are all told is so wonderful and makes companies provide us with what we want falls down!

These companies are busy spending their money on marketing these 'services', making people believe that they're giving them something!


Quote:

This is another "service" that I (& a lot of my friends) feel, should be looked into, or indeed have something done about it.

If you and your friends believe this, then why not opt to turn off mobile/landline voicemail.

What frustrates me is where I leave a message and the person tells me they don't bother getting messages are can't afford to (in the case of mobiles, ie not having enough credit.)

What's more, some of these mobile companies charge you to dial into your mailbox on their network!!! So they receive revenue from the caller who left the message and from you when you pick up the message and when you call the person back!

wrote on Oct 25^th, 2005 at 4:37pm:

In my opinion (& a lot of my friends) there are times when one doesn't want to leave a message, but the outcome is that it cost about 5p not to leave a message. i.e. One phones up, an answerphone comes on to tell one, that basically the person being phoned has call waiting, but if they do not answer one gets another message to stating, leave a message or phone later. This has now cost one approximately 5p for nothing (unless one wants to leave a message), how millions of 5p's are BT getting for this?

Best available (from a landline) is to make the call via 1899 or 18866.  Either would reduce the cost to 3p or a fraction more.

The 1571 & Orange answerphone may be free but not to the person calling.

The other thing that is annoying is when one dials a number, and one hears the first beep of the engaged tone, and before the second or third beep starts, a message stating that the line is engaged comes on, to try and get one to use dial back or whatever it is, maybe because the person one is calling doesn't have an answerphone.
At present one doesn't get charged for this, but one wonders how long it will take for this to happen.

What is the point of having an engaged tone in the 1st place?

We all know what it was for originally, to let one know that the person we are calling are using their phone.

Thank you Dave & Heinz for answering to this posting!

Engaged tone is free, so too are those messages you get from the mobile networks telling you that the person is unavailable (ie, where it doesn't go to answerphone).

This is presumably an industry wide rule where the call is not classed as connected (whereas an answering service is connected).

It appears that O2 have managed to get round this by providing a new 'service' called O2 Call Alert. This tells the caller that the receiver will be sent a text message giving them the number you called from. All well and good, you might think. But the call is now connected, and the caller charged (in most cases a minimum charge of 5p or so).

See this thread on MSE.

Vodafone are actually quite good at allowing the caller to terminate the call if they do not wish to leave a message.

If you call a vodafone mobile, and if it rings, then goes to voicemail, then just before voicemail, you can notice the divert taking place because it makes 2 higher pitch ringing tone prior to voicemail kicking in.

And of course if the phone is switched off, the ringing is the higher pitched ringing, which is different to normal ringing.  Of course you only have about 1-2 secs to hang up, but I have called vodafones quite a few times from my other mobiles inclusive minutes, and the call counter doesn't start until the voicemail is answered, and if I hang up before, then the call is not logged.

All other mobile companies switch straight to voicemail without warning, but at least vodafone gives you a couple of seconds to hang up.

I had some automated BT woman call me up "promiting" 1571 with mobile connect.

Apparently (if im stupid and dont notice the hidden charges), I can have all my 1571 calls diverted to my mobile, or have the left message played to me on my mobile.
Yeah WOOOPIE.

Then the small print comes. "all diverted calls will be charged at the BT rate for diverted calls to mobiles, you will be charged to listen to 1571 messages from your mobile, you will be charged.......... (at that point i slammed the phone down)".

I count the rings when calling a landline, and hang up before the 7th ring (which is where the answering service kicks in with BT). If I think the person might need longer to answer, I hit redial... hopefully they won't have just picked up the phone and dialled 1471 to see who it was.

What I really hate is when the line is engaged and the call goes straight to the answering service.

I refuse to have any voicemail service on my landline or mobile so as not to inflict it on others. I urge everyone to do the same.

I can't see the point of voicemail. If I wanted to leave a message, I'd have used e-mail, which is free! If I call someone, it's because I actually want a two-way conversation!

I also had an 'automated B.T. woman' place a message on my phone after it wasn't answered at 7.30 a.m. After discovering that the message was left by a mobile number (0798 ******) I rang B.T. and finally got thru to their customer  'service' who apparently knew nothing about why a mobile number was used , why B.T. market a service like this & didn't abide by the Telephone Preference Service Rules (appeared to think that they didn't have to unless the customer specifically asked for this to be entered in their B.T. files).
Any body got a clue why B.T. would use a mobile number ?

No folks I don't intend spending the 15 pence necessary to ring the number !

Our Ref: 2553185



31 Oct 2005

Dear Mr Hicks.

Thank you for your email to Ofcom.

The usefulness of answer phones and whether an individual objects to being charged does, of course, depend very much on the individual's point of view.  If the caller wants to leave a message then clearly they consider it to be a benefit.  If they do not then they will take the opposite view.

We have recorded the views you make about what answer phone messages should now say.  

Yours sincerely





Steven Parker
Ofcom Contact Centre



Ofcom are continually aiming to improve customer service levels, as such your details may be passed to a research agency who will be conducting some research for us. If you would prefer not to be contacted for research purposes you can telephone Ofcom on 0800 169 7670. Please note this is a voicemail service only and we will not be able to discuss your complaint or query on this number. Alternatively you can e-mail your Ofcom reference and full name with the message No contact to market.research@ofcom.org.uk



::Steven Parker
Telecoms Support
contact@ofcom.org.uk

::Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3040
www.ofcom.org.uk

Quote:

Dave wrote: It appears that O2 have managed to get round this by providing a new 'service' called O2 Call Alert. This tells the caller that the receiver will be sent a text message giving them the number you called from. All well and good, you might think. But the call is now connected, and the caller charged (in most cases a minimum charge of 5p or so).

This I am getting fed up with as well, if I try to ring my wife on her mobile and she is in an area that has bad reception, o2 send a text to tell her I tried to call, but we may be in town just trying to locate one another so another 10p I believe for the text.

This happens with friends as well, my point being, that if my call is important I am quite capable of sending a text, whereas o2 have no idea if the call is important and send the text anyway.

Does anyone know if I can "opt out" of this service?

cavaliersteve wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

This happens with friends as well, my point being, that if my call is important I am quite capable of sending a text, whereas o2 have no idea if the call is important and send the text anyway. Does anyone know if I can "opt out" of this service?

Information from O2 on CallAlert is here.

You and your wife can disable this service by dialling 1760. You might like to advise your friends to do the same.

If you withhold your number to someone who has this service on, you will not be charged. I assume that because you haven't given your number it can't and won't send them a text.

cavaliersteve wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

Quote: Dave wrote: It appears that O2 have managed to get round this by providing a new 'service' called O2 Call Alert. This tells the caller that the receiver will be sent a text message giving them the number you called from. All well and good, you might think. But the call is now connected, and the caller charged (in most cases a minimum charge of 5p or so). This I am getting fed up with as well, if I try to ring my wife on her mobile and she is in an area that has bad reception, o2 send a text to tell her I tried to call, but we may be in town just trying to locate one another so another 10p I believe for the text. This happens with friends as well, my point being, that if my call is important I am quite capable of sending a text, whereas o2 have no idea if the call is important and send the text anyway. Does anyone know if I can "opt out" of this service?

Blimey, 3 years to reply, this must surely be a record!!

derrick wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 2:18pm:

Blimey, 3 years to reply, this must surely be a record!!

It can actually be slightly annoying when people drag up really old threads. There comes a stage when it's better to start a new thread on the same topic.

The worst is, I was looking through earlier messages in the threads and saw someone who seemed to have similar views to me when it comes to BT 1571. Then I realised that message was posted, in 2005, by a user called jrawle!

I have the equivalent service called Vodafone CallCatcher on my mobile and it sends a text when someone calls me and my phone is turned off or I am out of network coverage - it gives the CLI of the number that called and the time and date.  So far as I am aware the caller is not charged for this service as they just get the usual free network announcement that the phone is off or not available at present.

jrawle wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:

It can actually be slightly annoying when people drag up really old threads.

I was wondering why lavillegour had suddenly resurfaced in the forum................

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 2:03pm:

So far as I am aware the caller is not charged for this service as they just get the usual free network announcement that the phone is off or not available at present.

Are those messages free? Even when calling from a landline? I thought that as far as the caller's provider was concerned, the call had been connected, and that such a message was no different from going straight through to voicemail.

jrawle wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 11:17pm:

Are those messages free? Even when calling from a landline? I thought that as far as the caller's provider was concerned, the call had been connected, and that such a message was no different from going straight through to voicemail.

No those messages used to be chargeable but no longer are if the phone is off or out of coverage.

It appears O2's game is to make their equivalent of Call Catcher chargeable by not going straight to a network message (which cannot be charged) but first playing some intervening message in which you physically agree to be charged for the transmission of their equivalent of a Call Catcher text message to the person you are calling.  If they don't obtain your agreement to the charge then it will be illegal.

It does of course seem an obvious consistency that you can be connected to a voicemail or answerphone without agreeing to pay a charge but I think Ofcom's response will be that this is as good as speaking to the caller as you can still leave them a message.

On the issue of the protocol and courtesy associated with call waiting and voicemail.

I have both features on both my landline and mobile and use them. If someone makes a call to me that incurs a cost in only speaking to my voicemail then I am happy to myself incur the cost of calling back, if the purpose of the call cannot be achieved by the message being left for me. I see that as nothing more than a duty that falls on me by allowing calls to be answered on my behalf when I am not personally available. As I see it, anyone who is not prepared to accept this responsibility should not be using a voicemail service.

If costs are incurred as a result of a pointless connnection to an voicemail service service then that is simply part of the discourtesy that is caused by the fact that the message would not receive attention.

Those who call me never incur any greater cost than that which they expected to incur, so I cannot see the problem. If my telephone service providers give me the option of not having calls automatically answered when I am unavailable then all the responsibility is placed on me to use their services properly.

Are there any cases where the principles outlined above do not apply, or cannot be followed?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2008 at 7:49pm:

Are there any cases where the principles outlined above do not apply, or cannot be followed?

You seem not to have allowed for people who do not wish to speak to an answerphone at all on principal but are still made to pay for having a call answered by a machine on which they do not wish to leave a mesage.

Secondly you have not allowed for a scenario where you are away on holiday overseas and someone leaves one message to which you have still not responded and then calls back again and has to pay to find you are still away even though they will not wish to leave another message for you.

The bottom line point that people are making and that you seem to miss is that with voicemail systems it would be possible to announce the person is not answering but that if you wish you can leave a voicemail message for them but there is a charge for doing so and you can also therefore decided not to do so at no charge.  However as answerphones started off with simple analogue telephone answering machines that had to physically answer the line to play a message telecoms companies have taken advantage of this by setting up voicemail systems the same way where they earn huge amounts in minimum charges and connection fees  (that BT has doubled in the last five years) for a call where the caller gets no useful service.

If Ofcom were any good as a regulator instead of being a covert trade association for the telecoms industry they should have come down on this like a tongue of bricks and demanded that voicemail systems gave the option not to leave a message at no charge.  This was only fair and reasonable as the number of calls being terminated by voicemail systems went through the roof and call revenue from real (non voicemail and answerphone related) calls still remained the same.

Instead BT in particular has used a 100% increase in the cost of these immediately hung up calls to blackmail most people in to signing up for calling plans as being the only way not to suffer a high marginal cost every time one of these dead answerphone/voicemail connections where no message is left occurs.  This is especially grossly unfair to single person households who generally do not make enough calls to recover the fixed cost of the calling plans.

So in summary you have missed rather a large amount of the argument on this particular question by only assessing it at a superficial level.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 16^th, 2008 at 8:49pm:

You seem not to have allowed for people who do not wish to speak to an answerphone at all on principal but are still made to pay for having a call answered by a machine on which they do not wish to leave a mesage.

If I did not think that my voicemail provided an acceptable replacement for me answering the phone in person, when I was unable to do so, then I would not use it. If for any reason, e.g. a holiday, I would not be able to attend to messages for some days, then I would turn the service off. I would consider it to be a great discourtesy to allow messages to collect up unattanded for several days.

Whilst I respect the reluctance of some callers to contact me via message when I am unavailable, I decide to use a voicemail service. I see this situation as being little different to that where a family member answered the phone whilst I was out, and offered to provide the same service in person.

As things stand it is left to the caller to decide how to deal with a voicemail service, if the called party chooses to deploy one, just as they must decide about whether or not to leave a message with a person. I trust that those who do not wish to give messages instruct those they call not to allow family members, colleagues or assistants to answer their calls.


If telephone service providers were to be able to advise callers when a call was being answered by voicemail rather than a person picking up the phone, then we would have been able to eliminate one of the major causes of Silent Calls many years ago.

Where an automated calling device is used it is often desired to detect cases where an answering service has taken a call, so as to avoid deploying an agent. There is no facility provided to support this approach, so call centres have been using seriously inaccurate Answering Machine Detection technnology. Every time that this registers a "false positive", it results in a Silent Call.

I have often argued that the fact that a call is being answered by a machine rather than a person should be declared in advance so that the caller can decide whether or not to proceed. This would be of great benefit for outbound calls from call centres, as it would enable accurate AMD. It would also be valuable for inbound calls to call centres. Such a facility would enable callers to a) avoid waiting in a queue if we did not wish to, b) to take advantage of an array of menu options only when this was of benefit and c) connect to those who announced in advance that they offered the facility of a callback at the first opportunity when the person required became available.

The telephone service providers in general have not yet responded to this need, so it is left to telephone users to deal with the reality of the present situation responsibly. (Ofcom has recently at last declared that "false positive AMD calls" will henceforward be classed as Silent Calls. With AMD thereby effectively outlawed the outbound call centre industry should be allied with the objectives of those pursuing the points in this thread.)

I fully appreciate the desire to press telephone companies to extend their service offerings, and it seems that some are starting to respond. I support such pressure, but cannot agree that they should be compelled to offer this feature by regulatory imposition, no matter how beneficial it may be.

My only point is that the present situation should not be used as an excuse by telephone users not to accept responsibility for the way in which they use the services that are available. This applies to use of AMD by call centres, as well as a failure to turn off an answering service that may be enabled by default, by those unprepared to use it properly.

I dislike leaving messages on answering machines because, quite frankly, I feel awkward and ridiculous doing so. Unlike a normal call, where it's a two-way conversation which moves along naturally through prompts and questions the two parties give each other, with an answerphone the caller is just presented with a brief message then silence at which to record a message.

SilentCallsVictim does have a point that people using voicemail must have the courtesy to call back anyone who leaves the message. But if he were to use the 1571 service from BT, I'm sure he'd have fun disabling it every time he went on holiday (I'm not even sure BT would allow this). There is also the issue that people may not check their voicemail very often. If you need to speak to someone today, leaving a message is no good: BT 1571 users typically have to lift their phone to hear the intermittent tone. If they don't make any calls for the rest of the day, and don't think to check, they aren't going to call back. So the caller has to call again later to make sure.

With a conventional answering machine, it's possible to hang up before the machine kicks in. What I hate about 1571 is that if the line is engaged, it goes through to the machine immediately without warning, and without giving me any time to prepare what I'm going to say.

As NGM says, in this day and age, there's no technical reason why voicemail has to work like an old-fashioned answerphone, where the call has to be connected to hear the recorded message. The fact is, phone companies use 1571 services to make extra money out of the "connection charges". They know they can't charge for a traditional engaged tone, so by persuading people to take the "wonderful, free service" that is 1571, they gain lots of extra revenue.

Whether or not the receipt of income from connection charges on wasted calls is a genuine reason for the over-promotion of under-featured voicemail services, it is the responsibility of those who cannot use a voicemail service responsibly, or are aware that their callers will not wish to use it, to turn it off.

If, as is suggested, they are unable to do so, then that is a different matter. It would be quite unacceptable for such an unwanted feature to be forced on customers.

For the record, I use the advanced (and under-promoted) BT Callminder Plus facility, combined with call waiting. Callminder Plus has the advantage of providing a notification to my mobile whenever a message is left on my landline. This enables me to respond immediately whenever a message is left and also avoids the need to check for the interupted dial tone. I am happy to pay a premium for this advanced facility.

I have always been fiercely critical of those who have voicemail systems that they do not use properly. This has mainly been in the business environment, but the same point applies to personal telephones.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 16^th, 2008 at 12:19am:

[It appears O2's game is to make their equivalent of Call Catcher chargeable by not going straight to a network message (which cannot be charged) but first playing some intervening message in which you physically agree to be charged for the transmission of their equivalent of a Call Catcher text message to the person you are calling.  If they don't obtain your agreement to the charge then it will be illegal.

I don't think it works quite like this. You're not charged for a text message, but as I haven't played with it much, I don't know about call cost, which I'll check later. Perhaps similarly, when I called a switched-off German mobile number a couple of weeks ago it was a couple of pence for the call, but not 12 pence for a text message.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 11:53am:

For the record, I use the advanced (and under-promoted) BT Callminder Plus facility, combined with call waiting. Callminder Plus has the advantage of providing a notification to my mobile whenever a message is left on my landline. This enables me to respond immediately whenever a message is left and also avoids the need to check for the interupted dial tone. I am happy to pay a premium for this advanced facility.

I don't think I'd have any objection is this was the sort of service people generally used (and only people who wanted it, and knew what they're doing). What I object to is the "free" 1571 service provided by BT and others - if, like me, you don't have this service, BT give you a hard sell whenever you call about anything else. Customers jump at the chance to have an extra "free" service, yet would have to be naive to believe the phone companies don't get anything out of it.

1st I'd like to thank Dave for the for the 1760 number, as this seems to have worked.

2nd
Quote:

Post by jrawle I count the rings when calling a landline, and hang up before the 7th ring (which is where the answering service kicks in with BT).........................................

After speaking to some other people, they have the means to set the amount of rings before the answerphone kicks in, one of my friends had his set to 11, but I was caught out once when he had set it to 7, and again as someone else mentioned, when he was on the phone and it kicked in straight away, so counting rings is o.k. as long as your friend/s tell you how many rings they have it set for.

As to people dragging up old threads, does it matter how old a thread is? Some sites have so many threads that it can take a time to wade through them all, if it is that annoying why bother reading them and then posting comments.

I also believe that starting a new thread on the same topic means members have to trawl through more of the website than is actually necessary, isn't this the idea of posts to keep all views on one thread.

In fact on some websites I have been to, I have seen the moderators telling people off for just this, and in some cases they have either moved the post to the appropriate thread, or in worst case scenario's, just deleted them.
When the poster commented on this he was directed to the websites rules and regulations and asked to read them, where it stated this would be done.

So to avoid annoying moderators and regulators, I stick to posting to a thread that is relevant to my comment/s. Doesn't the words "New Topic" mean just that?

I apologise to anyone that this upsets, but I shouldn't have to, because I believe that just starting a new thread / topic because you can't find one that applies to your comments is being lazy!

cavaliersteve wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

I count the rings when calling a landline, and hang uAs to people dragging up old threads, does it matter how old a thread is? Some sites have so many threads that it can take a time to wade through them all, if it is that annoying why bother reading them and then posting comments.

I suppose it depends on whether the old one is relevant. If it means repeating what's been said to a newbie, then I think it is best to refer them to the existing thread. I don't think that what has been said about answerphones 4 years ago is any less valid today.


cavaliersteve wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

So to avoid annoying moderators and regulators ...

Ah right, so I'm annoying am I??  :-? >:(

Sorry Dave,

I don't think that you read it the way I meant it.

I meant that I did to to avoid upsetting moderators (no you're not upsetting), I think you know what I mean by now.

I post to a relevant thread so that moderators won't get annoyed that they have to repremand me for posting a new thread when there is no need.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

I bet if I had said this on the phone we wouldn't be wasting server space.

BTW Happy new Year to you and all members and visitors  !!!

Hey what happened to my new website name suggestions?

nofunon0871 or closethedoorto0844 and itwontdoon0872

cavaliersteve wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 1:03pm:

I don't think that you read it the way I meant it.

Maybe I did!  ;D ;D ;D


cavaliersteve wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 1:03pm:

nofunon0871 or closethedoorto0844 and itwontdoon0872

Very good. I know some have suggested that we should become saynoto0871.

Dave wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 3:15pm:

Very good. I know some have suggested that we should become saynoto0871.

Unfortunately, saynoto*.com where * is 0844, 0845, 0871, 0872, 0800 and 08 itself are ALL taken already by cybersquatters... otherwise they would have been good to get just as an alias to the site.

Heinz wrote on Oct 25^th, 2005 at 6:25pm:

Best available (from a landline) is to make the call via 1899 or 18866.  Either would reduce the cost to 3p or a fraction more.

You seem to be out of date Heinz.

Finarea charges a 5p flat fee per call for calls to 01/02/03 numbers on 18866, 1899 and 18185.  3p per call was a long time ago.

But coming back to the OPs post sadly he will find that on the BT Weekend Calls Plan outside the weekend the minimum charge per call to 01/02/03 is now 12p (8p connection and 4p for the first minute as minutes are rounded up by BT these days).

The bottom line is that these fees are not paid be people with inclusive call plans who instead perceive they are getting extra value for money every time they hit an Answerphone.  It is all part of the telco game of forcing everyone to take a call plan to guarantee their anticipated monthly revenue stream.  All of it is very bad news for anyone who does not make many calls on their landline.  And iOfcom and the OFT ought to be looking in to it but of course they are not. >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 12:49am:

Heinz wrote on Oct 25th, 2005 at 6:25pm: Best available (from a landline) is to make the call via 1899 or 18866.  Either would reduce the cost to 3p or a fraction more. You seem to be out of date Heinz. Finarea charges a 5p flat fee per call for calls to 01/02/03 numbers on 18866, 1899 and 18185.  3p per call was a long time ago.

October 25th 2005 perhaps!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 2:41am:

October 25th 2005 perhaps!

I thought you were on record as saying you do not use these cheapskate indirect access services with their potentially suspect call routing issues etc yourself SCV?

That being so where exactly did you obtain the date of October 25th 2005 from?  A forum search perhaps?

I remember the days when 18866 only charged 1p per call.  Those were the days.............

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 6:32am:

where exactly did you obtain the date of October 25th 2005 from?  A forum search perhaps?

I found it on this posting http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1130265254/30#30.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 8:53am:

I found it on this posting http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1130265254/30#30.

No such date provided there.

Look at reply #30 and you will see that you are quoting from a post dated from 2005. I think that what SCV means.

I missed the fact that cavaliersteve had reactivated his old thread. :-[

After all these years,

7, since the last post from NGMsGhost,

I just wanted to say that as most companies now offer the choice of paying a fee for "unlimited free calls" the answerphone charge is basically abolished.

That said the issue of people "dragging up" old posts, I do believe can be fixed by any of the moderators.

On one website that I moderate, I am able to lock the topic, thereby stopping people "bumping" the post or adding further comments when they are no longer needed or necessary, just like this thread now.

I therefore wish all users of this / these forums a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Probably a little early but the sentiment is in the message.

:) ;D :-X

Dear cavaliersteve

It is indeed possible to "lock" a post but it's something I rarely feel the need to do. 

However it may be that I need to start looking at threads (some of which are now 7 plus years old) and start locking them.

A Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too.